[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH/RFC] Simplified Readahead
    Nick Piggin wrote:

    > Steven Pratt wrote:
    >> Andrew Morton wrote:
    >>> Steven Pratt <> wrote:
    >>>> would like to offer up an alternative simplified design which will
    >>>> not only make the code easier to maintain,
    >>> We won't know that until all functionality is in place.
    >> Ok, but both you and Nick indicated that the queue congestion isn't
    >> needed,
    > I would have thought that always doing the readahead would provide a
    > more graceful degradation, assuming the readahead algorithm is fairly
    > accurate, and copes with things like readahead thrashing (which we
    > hope is the case).

    Yes, that is exactly my thought. I think this is what the new code does.

    >>> I do think we should skip the I/O for POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED against a
    >>> congested queue. I can't immediately think of a good reason for
    >>> skipping
    >>> the I/O for normal readahead.
    > I don't see why you should skip the readahead for FADVISE_WILLNEED
    > either. Presumably if someone needs this, they really need it. We
    > should aim for optimal behaviour when the apis are being used
    > correctly...

    Ok, great, since this is what it does.

    Thanks, Steve

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [W:0.027 / U:0.976 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site